1
   

The "Overeducated" and Barack Obama

 
 
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:06 am
A fascinating report tells us that President Obama has heavy support from those with graduate degrees, called, "the overeducated"; interesting description in itself. I don't know how to interpret it. Has anyone any ideas? Here is the report from AP.

Obama Still Loved By The Over-Educated






Sam Stein Sam Stein - Thu Jan 28, 5:29 pm ET
President Obama's popularity has slipped among a wide swath of the population. Among the nation's over-educated, however, he continues to do just fine.
Gallup surveyed more than 25,000 voters over the past calendar year and found that the president remains well-liked among those with multiple degrees.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents with a postgraduate degree approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the study, compared to 49 percent of college graduates, 46 percent of those with some college education and 50 percent with high school education or less.
Indeed, while Obama's standing has fallen among each of these four groups since taking office, it is the postgraduate bunch who has stayed most closely committed, even giving the president a slight uptick in approval ratings over the last month.
The findings feed into the stereotypical political narrative that those with an advanced education are decidedly liberal and that those who are decidedly liberal are committed to Democratic politicians. Gallup, in fact, makes such a conclusion itself.
Since he has become president, postgraduates have been among his more reliable supporters, backing him at higher levels than do those in other educational groups.
But the relationship between "educational attainment and support for Obama" is nuanced. For instance, black voters, regardless of their educational achievements, back Obama at roughly a 90 percent clip. But with non-Hispanic white voters, the gap is quite large when delineating by education level.
Fifty-four percent of non-Hispanic whites with a postgraduate degree favor the job Obama is doing. Just 38 percent of non-Hispanic whites with a high school education or less say the same thing.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,162 • Replies: 104
No top replies

 
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:45 am
@kennethamy,
I'm cutting and pasting a letter here that was emailed to me by a friend. It doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with your post, but I found it interesting nonetheless, especially in light of comments about The Manchurian Candidate in the "What is Free Will?" thread.

I'm still baffled by the whole "overeducated" thing. What does that even mean? Is it like being "over-smart?" Is the underlying premise that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives, or what?

Not being overeducated myself, I'm confused.

Anyway, here's the letter:
Quote:

This was written by a Wall Street Journal subscriber who calls himself Eddie Sessions. It was posted about an hour ago
(it's now about 10 a.m. PDT 1/20/10). Just cut and pasted - not changed in any way. If you choose to share it, please give author credit to Eddie and do him the favor of leaving it as is.


I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a communist with a small "c" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984"s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual"s life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:06 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;123479 wrote:
I'm cutting and pasting a letter here that was emailed to me by a friend. It doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with your post, but I found it interesting nonetheless, especially in light of comments about The Manchurian Candidate in the "What is Free Will?" thread.

I'm still baffled by the whole "overeducated" thing. What does that even mean? Is it like being "over-smart?" Is the underlying premise that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives, or what?

Not being overeducated myself, I'm confused.

Anyway, here's the letter:


There is a lot of truth in that letter, and I agree with a lot of it. Obama is in way over his head-unfortunately for America. (But I don't agree Obama is a Communist. I think Obama is mostly an Obamaist).

Perhaps people will equate being over-educated with being smart. I don't. I have known too many over-educated dummies. It reminds be of the remark that intellectuals are people who have been educated beyond their capacities. I really don't think that is, strictly speaking true, but having an advanced degree does not (to my mind) guarantee anything about a person's judgment. Intellect and education help, but judgment is the important thing.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:10 pm
@TickTockMan,
"Over-educated" means that their education level is suffering from diminishing returns. You see, TickTock, in this wholesome, corporate owned Republic of ours, ruled by bankers, education has one very serious purpose: to increase the earning potential of the individual, which in turn increases his consumption potential. So, an "over-educated" person is an individual who has expended more energy, time, and money than was necessary in order for him or her to attain his or her current consumption potential. And that's what good Americans are supposed to do in this Republic of Materialism, it's a patriotic duty really, to consume for the benefit of our banking monarchs. Just like ancient people once made burnt offerings to the Gods. If you go back to your history textbook, this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson said, verbatim. Yes, sir.

As for Obama - people who are better educated are not so easily fooled with the revisionist history and nonsense, Glenn Beck styled orations. Those who have less education are more likely to fall for the tricks. Not that these people are less intelligent at all, because they're typically not less intelligent. They're simply less educated. And education matters.

I'm not even saying that Obama is doing a good job, or anything positive about him - except that most educated people can understand that his administration is an improvement upon the last, and a far better option than McCain with his clownish sidekick. Remember, though, most educated people understand that voting is a matter of selecting the lesser of two evils, so "approving" of Obama's job is more accurately "believing Obama's job performance to be better than any likely alternative from the other party."
0 Replies
 
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123484 wrote:

Perhaps people will equate being over-educated with being smart. I don't. I have known too many over-educated dummies. It reminds be of the remark that intellectuals are people who have been educated beyond their capacities. I really don't think that is, strictly speaking true, but having an advanced degree does not (to my mind) guarantee anything about a person's judgment. Intellect and education help, but judgment is the important thing.


I agree with this. I could name several of my associates who are tremendously well educated and intelligent, yet have the common sense of a bag of hammers.

---------- Post added 01-29-2010 at 11:21 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;123486 wrote:
If you go back to your history textbook, this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson said, verbatim. Yes, sir.



Yes, but Jefferson was just one of the Illuminati's home dawgs. Everyone knows that.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:24 pm
@TickTockMan,
Except for the sentence mentioning Jefferson, I was being completely serious.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:21 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Purely from a European perspective, I think the problem of colour is evidently showing its great big ugly face. Watching presidents come and go and watching the most inane a comical figures occupy that great house, pinkies every one, and despite their obvious ignorant facade have managed to stink of the sweetest of southern roses. You have a problem America, a big stinking problem. You imagine and have the audacity to say a man who has the greatest ability and a vision that could heal the differences that occupy your diverse country, is a fool. Its propaganda from the right, its bitter and twisted attitude will by any means destroy the best you have produced in a hundred years. Its not, the over educated, its the intelligent , that recognise that you have a man capable of making history but is hog tied by Conservative backward politics. Its just not this damned red that thinks it, I have heard british conservatives express the same opinion. Wake up America face your future.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:22 pm
@kennethamy,
I suppose there is a distinction between being intelligent (Having a lot of information stored) and being smart (Being able to use the said information). At least, I think we can make such distinction, anyone agrees?
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:44 pm
@kennethamy,
By over-educated I think they are implying that at a certain level of education people lose touch with common sense values. Something like "they spend all their time in school while real Americans are working a job to feed their family". People who spend that much time in academia think they are smarter just because they are learned, but really they are in a liberal cocoon with no comprehension of how the real world works. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Complete bunk of course.

How you judge Obama depends one how much you expect one man to be able to do in our system of government, and how much you tell yourself you know about economics, international relations, technology, science and history.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:53 pm
@xris,
xris;123502 wrote:
Purely from a European perspective, I think the problem of colour is evidently showing its great big ugly face. Watching presidents come and go and watching the most inane a comical figures occupy that great house, pinkies every one, and despite their obvious ignorant facade have managed to stink of the sweetest of southern roses. You have a problem America, a big stinking problem. You imagine and have the audacity to say a man who has the greatest ability and a vision that could heal the differences that occupy your diverse country, is a fool. Its propaganda from the right, its bitter and twisted attitude will by any means destroy the best you have produced in a hundred years. Its not, the over educated, its the intelligent , that recognise that you have a man capable of making history but is hog tied by Conservative backward politics. Its just not this damned red that thinks it, I have heard british conservatives express the same opinion. Wake up America face your future.


I haven't heard anyone say Obama was a fool. All I said was that he is in over his head. This has nothing to do with race. In America, presidents are often not allowed to do just as they please. It is called "the separation of powers", and, ultimately, democracy. Yet, of course. Lincoln and Roosevelt managed to accomplish much of what they wanted. And perhaps over more obstacles than Obama has to overcome. So, it may just be that Obama cannot cut it. At least, so it seems now. In a couple of Novembers we'll see what the American people say.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 02:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123511 wrote:
I haven't heard anyone say Obama was a fool. All I said was that he is in over his head. This has nothing to do with race. In America, presidents are often not allowed to do just as they please. It is called "the separation of powers", and, ultimately, democracy. Yet, of course. Lincoln and Roosevelt managed to accomplish much of what they wanted. And perhaps over more obstacles than Obama has to overcome. So, it may just be that Obama cannot cut it. At least, so it seems now. In a couple of Novembers we'll see what the American people say.
Im speaking from a European, objective, view that is shared by many in Europe. We see a very expensive elaborate machine operating against the intentions of an elected president and a lot of it appears to be inspired by racial and extreme political opinions. I never expected the extreme right to accept his proposals but I never thought they would be so obviously active and not be seen for what they are by the general populace. Snide, half insinuated, joking ignorant remarks ,claimed not to be serious are eroding his authority and weakening his effectiveness. I see colour and its prejudice no matter how much Americans think they have overcome its history. You never gave any white honky president such critical appraisal after such a short term in office. I can remember Blushing bush and a president whose brain was missing for half his term, never ever receiving such terrible reports that I now see emanating from a right wing inspired machine.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 03:59 pm
@xris,
xris;123515 wrote:
Im speaking from a European, objective, view that is shared by many in Europe. We see a very expensive elaborate machine operating against the intentions of an elected president and a lot of it appears to be inspired by racial and extreme political opinions. I never expected the extreme right to accept his proposals but I never thought they would be so obviously active and not be seen for what they are by the general populace. Snide, half insinuated, joking ignorant remarks ,claimed not to be serious are eroding his authority and weakening his effectiveness. I see colour and its prejudice no matter how much Americans think they have overcome its history. You never gave any white honky president such critical appraisal after such a short term in office. I can remember Blushing bush and a president whose brain was missing for half his term, never ever receiving such terrible reports that I now see emanating from a right wing inspired machine.


Actually, President Bush was roundly insulted and attacked by the Democratic left throughout his two terms. And Lincoln was called, "the baboon" in the newspapers of the time, and Roosevelt was accused of intentionally letting Pearl Harbor be bombed so as to enter the war. He was called pretty disgusting names too.

I think that President Bush will regain his reputation. After all, "Truth is the daughter of time". He may even be seen as a very prescient man for his actions in Iraq.

The Europeans are always denigrating Americans, and stereotyping them as racist, or as ignorant. It is their way of trying to maintain some dignity in a world that has left them way behind. They are easily deceived by superficialities. And President Obama is an "old smoothie". But now, Americans are beginning to have a bad case of buyers remorse.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 06:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123511 wrote:
I haven't heard anyone say Obama was a fool.


Then you have either been trapped in a closet, or you haven't been listening. Talking heads on TV come pretty close to saying just this. Go talk to some people in the public and, man, you're going to hear a helluva lot worse.

Race is a serious issue. There are people who do not like Obama because of his race. Quite a lot of them.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 10:33 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;123582 wrote:
Then you have either been trapped in a closet, or you haven't been listening. Talking heads on TV come pretty close to saying just this. Go talk to some people in the public and, man, you're going to hear a helluva lot worse.

Race is a serious issue. There are people who do not like Obama because of his race. Quite a lot of them.
Really? I haven't heard any racist remarks... admittedly I can be oblivious. I saw the PBS news tonight and their commentators seemed very slightly hopeful that when the Republicans get up off the floor from their recent set-backs, some bipartisanship might be possible.

There's been a lot of talk about how one of the difficulties in assessing Obama is that it's hard to credit someone for diverting disaster. 'Course how many times the same disaster can be diverted before it crash lands (pun intended) remains to be seen, huh?
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:03 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;123479 wrote:
I'm cutting and pasting a letter here that was emailed to me by a friend. It doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with your post, but I found it interesting nonetheless, especially in light of comments about The Manchurian Candidate in the "What is Free Will?" thread.

I'm still baffled by the whole "overeducated" thing. What does that even mean? Is it like being "over-smart?" Is the underlying premise that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives, or what?

Not being overeducated myself, I'm confused.

Anyway, here's the letter:


That has to be one of the most biased pieces of text that I have ever read. The subtle insults are not hard to spot. Sure, lots of it is true but Obama is without doubt a better president than Bush. So even if he is bad, he is still an improvement.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 02:12 am
@kennethamy,
The reason why we have a surplus of overeducated people is due to the fact that our economy is set up to manipulate the general public, rather than enrich the general population. "Overeducated" are hard to manipulate, and thus, not desirable for the economy. Until the economy is based on enrichment, rather than manipulation, this problem will continue to persist. This, of course, will not happen until the economy is decentralized by regulation of corporate powers in order to decentralize the economy. A free economy that values intelligence rather than stupidity will take advantage of having a mass of highly educated individuals. But as things are set up, the powers that be benefit economically from people being too stupid for their own good.

Now the question, is Obama the person that is going to make this possible? Probably not. Kucinich would have been the better choice to do that, but the powers that be would have never allowed him to come to power in this age of politics. Not to mention, Congress and the Supreme Court would have neutered him anyway. Go figure, checks and balances will maintain corporatocracy.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 06:38 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;123582 wrote:
Then you have either been trapped in a closet, or you haven't been listening. Talking heads on TV come pretty close to saying just this. Go talk to some people in the public and, man, you're going to hear a helluva lot worse.

Race is a serious issue. There are people who do not like Obama because of his race. Quite a lot of them.


I am sure you think that is true. But what is needed is evidence.

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 07:44 AM ----------

Theaetetus;123620 wrote:
The reason why we have a surplus of overeducated people is due to the fact that our economy is set up to manipulate the general public, rather than enrich the general population. "Overeducated" are hard to manipulate, and thus, not desirable for the economy. Until the economy is based on enrichment, rather than manipulation, this problem will continue to persist. .


If, as you say, our economy "was set up to manipulate the general public" , and if the "overeducated" are hard to manipulate, then why do we have a surplus of the "overeducated". Shouldn't we (according to your premises) have a dearth of the "overeducated". Could you explain why your argument actually proves (if it proves anything) exactly the opposite of its conclusion?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 07:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123633 wrote:
I am sure you think that is true. But what is needed is evidence.

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 07:44 AM ----------



If, as you say, our economy "was set up to manipulate the general public" , and if the "overeducated" are hard to manipulate, then why do we have a surplus of the "overeducated". Shouldn't we (according to your premises) have a dearth of the "overeducated". Could you explain why your argument actually proves (if it proves anything) exactly the opposite of its conclusion?

Opposition to Barack Obama's policies based on racism, ex-president Jimmy Carter says the opposition is fueled by racism and right wing ignorance.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 07:39 am
@xris,
xris;123643 wrote:
Opposition to Barack Obama's policies based on racism, ex-president Jimmy Carter says the opposition is fueled by racism and right wing ignorance.


Now, there's an authority! He ought to know about failed presidencies. He was tossed out of office just as soon as possible. The only hopeful thing is that if this country survived Jimmy, the peanut farmer, it may be able to survive Barry, the Chicago thug.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 07:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123646 wrote:
Now, there's an authority! He ought to know about failed presidencies. He was tossed out of office just as soon as possible. The only hopeful thing is that if this country survived Jimmy, the peanut farmer, it may be able to survive Barry, the Chicago thug.
So who are you going to hold up as a marvelous example of presidency? He has a certain authority in the real world, Carters opinion is noted to be of importance in Europe. Criticise his opinions on a rational basis or you might just be judged partisan. I might ask whose opinion would you accept?
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The "Overeducated" and Barack Obama
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 03:54:11